Re: Workflow for templates?

[Josef Wolf <jw@raven.inka.de>]

On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 08:45:45PM +0200, Enrico Weigelt wrote:
> I'd suggest a 3 level branch hierachy (IOW: the lower level
> is rebased ontop of the next higher level):
> 
> * #0: upstream branch
> * #1: generic local maintenance branch
> * #2: per-instance cutomization branches
> 
> Normal additions go to the lowest level #2. When you've got
> some generic commit, you propagate it to the next level
> (cherry-pick) and rebase layer #2 ontop of it.
> Now you can send your layer #1 to upstream for integration.
> 
> When upstream updated his branch, you simply rebase #1
> ontop of it, do your checks etc, then proceed to rebasing #3.
> 
> You could also introduce more intermediate layers (eg when you've
> got different groups of similar instance that share certain changes)

Thanks for the suggestion, Enrico!

I am somewhat unsure whether it would work this way. After all, there seems to
be an unbreakable rule with git: never rebase published branches.

Thus, once I have published my work to other people who also need to work on
the same localizations as I do, I have no longer the option of rebasing to get
rid of the localizations and put the generic template stuff for upstream.

I guess, my concern is because I have not yet fully understood the problems of
rebasing, and how to recover from them.

Maybe I should try to explain the problem in terms of repository
hierarchy. Let's assume, there is this hierarchy of repositories:

upstream: central repository, containing the generic template

foo-site: repository for site foo. Here we have localizations for a specific
          administrative entity named foo (say, google).
          This is where clones for production are made from, and production
          boxes pull from here to be kept up-to-date.

foo-prodA: A clone of foo-site, put in production and pulling from a specific
           branch on foo-site to receive released, blessed updates.
foo-prodB: Similar to foo-prodA, but on another box.
           
foo-devA: A clone of foo-site to make development, releases, and whatever for
          foo.
foo-devB: One more clone of foo-site, Developer B is working here.

Then, we might have more administrative entities: bar-site, bar-prodA,
bar-prodB, bar-devA, bar-devB, for example. This might be Microsoft, for
example.

Further, foo-devA might be the same person as bar-devA.

So when foo-devA pulls from foo-devB, then foo-devB will create problems when
he rebases after that pull.

I think I have some kind of misunderstanding here, but I just can't figure
what it is.


Maybe I should try to explain the problem in yet other words:

What I am trying to achieve, is to extend the workflow from development to
deployment across multiple administrative entities. As a picture:

  upstream     (templates only).
     ^
     |
     v
  development  (configured, might contain experimental changes)
     ^
     |
     v
  deployment   (configured)

This workflow should not stop at administrative borders. Just replace foo by
google and bar by Microsoft to get an idea of what I am trying to achieve.